Dayashankar Singh Rajput vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 19737 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Dayashankar Singh Rajput vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 November, 2023

                                                              1
                            IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                       BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
                                              ON THE 24 th OF NOVEMBER, 2023
                                              WRIT PETITION No. 24978 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           DAYASHANKAR SINGH RAJPUT S/O LATE SHRI J.M.
                           SOINGH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                           RETITRED GOVERNMENT SERVANT R/O MIG 541
                           POLICE STATION HOUSING SOCIETY SANJIV NAGAR
                           NEW JAIL ROAD, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI G.S. CHANDEL - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                 PRINCIPAL    SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
                                 FINANCE MANTRALAYA, VALLABH BHAWAN,
                                 BHOPAL DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    STATE OF M.P. THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
                                 GENERAL    ADMINISTRATIVE    DEPARTMENT
                                 MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    PENSION DISTRIBUTION OFFICER DIVISIONAL
                                 PENSION OFFICE BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    SECRETARY LOKAYUKAT OFFICE SAMADHAN
                                 BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                   .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI V.P. TIWARI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                               ORDER

Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2 . The petitioner who was working in the Lokayukta Organization and superannuated on 30.6.2022 and after a period of 8 months from his superannuation the payment of gratuity amount was paid to him but it was informed to the petitioner that due to wrong pay fixation, since 1.7.2008 excess payment of Rs.54,204/- was made to him and therefore, the total amount of Rs.98,164/- along with interest is recoverable.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) passed in Civil Appeal No.11527/2014 dated 18.12.2014, the order of recovery is bad in law and the respondents be

restrained from recovering the said amount of Rs.98,164/-. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has submitted his representation but the same has not been decided till date.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner has claimed several relief in the petition but the petitioner will be satisfied if direction is issued to the respondent to decide the representation of the petitioner within stipulated time.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection.

6. In view of above facts and circumstances, I deem it just and proper to dispose of this petition with a direction to the petitioner to file fresh representations before the respondent No.3 and upon submission of representation, respondent No.3 is directed to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by passing a speaking order, in accordance with law. The out come of the consideration will be

communicated to the petitioner.

7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

8. With the aforesaid direction, the petition is disposed of.

(VINAY SARAF) JUDGE irf.